Author
Topic: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1] (Read 19116 times)

DB

Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

Quote from: daniel_charms

#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology. Save the money on R&D and lower the price.

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

You state categorically that Canon have spent a lot of money on R&D for the 5D3, could you tell us all how much? To the nearest hundred thousand dollars would be fine.

DB

If Canon do decide to make a body like this, I think they need to change the entire concept of the camera and make it smaller and lighter than any of the current full frame models. That would be a good way of marketing it as something different from the 5D MkII.

Agree. I think it should be a new category of camera - a 6d or something.

There's definitely a market for people who would like FF but won't spend on a 5d3 (or don't need the features) but who would like an "upgrade" from their 7d, 5d1 or something.

+1 Could not agree more. As a 7D user with several L lenses who would like my next body to be FF, I'd be prepared to pay up to $2000 for the camera body, but would never consider three and a half thousand euros (that's US$4,460) for a 5D3 which is what it retails for in my country.

There is potentially a large swathe of APS-C camera owners with good glass that would buy a sub-$2000 FF camera, and if NIKON get there first, well they will likely clean-up both in market share and profitability.

Just because Canon has already used the same AF system in another camera (which has been announced but hasn't actually reached the market yet) it doesn't mean it didn't cost them anything to add the same sensor to the 5d3. Developing this AF system cost a certain fixed amount of money that they will have to recover somehow; the fact that they chose to use it in another camera besides their flagship product just means this cost will be spread out between two different camera lines, just like the cost of developing the Digic V chip will be spread out between different cameras and so on. And which one of those do you think will help them recover most of it? My guess is it definitely won't be the one still not actually shipping.

This is close to a whopping 4200$ just to upgrade and incorporate a 5D3 into my workflow. Damn too expensive for me, considering I could by a 1ds3 used for the same price and wouldn't need to upgrade everything else around it.

Canon really needs to drop the price of the 5d3 to 2999$ or release a body around that price range. I won't spend 4200$ for just one camera body that I would love but can live without. I could buy two MK2 with that cash.

This is close to a whopping 4200$ just to upgrade and incorporate a 5D3 into my workflow. Damn too expensive for me, considering I could by a 1ds3 used for the same price and wouldn't need to upgrade everything else around it.

Canon really needs to drop the price of the 5d3 to 2999$ or release a body around that price range. I won't spend 4200$ for just one camera body that I would love but can live without. I could buy two MK2 with that cash.

This is close to a whopping 4200$ just to upgrade and incorporate a 5D3 into my workflow. Damn too expensive for me, considering I could by a 1ds3 used for the same price and wouldn't need to upgrade everything else around it.

Canon really needs to drop the price of the 5d3 to 2999$ or release a body around that price range. I won't spend 4200$ for just one camera body that I would love but can live without. I could buy two MK2 with that cash.

Doesn't make much sense to go into production with a new camera when the 5D2 is still awesome and the factories are geared to producing it.

Quote from: daniel_charms

#1 Possibly except they are spending money on R&D (supposedly) and we can assume that the 5d2 with the already stripped specs is not that expensive to make––surely less so than a new camera with newer technology. Save the money on R&D and lower the price.

The economics of running a high tech production line are not very intuitive. Manufacturing costs are relatively fixed no matter what level of technology is actually being assembled.

This is similar to the manufacture of hard drives. For example about 5 years ago you could buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for $100 dollars. If hard drives were like other goods, where the price of manufacturing them comes down as time goes by you would expect that you could now buy a 100 gigabyte hard drive for say $50.

This is not the case. Instead you can buy a 2 terabyte hard drive for $100 - i.e. the unit cost has really not come down at all, as cost for each part of the hard drive has remained the same, but because of the R+D done you get much more space for your $100 of hard drive.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors. (Production lines for producing sensors has to be more expensive than production lines for assembling bodies which is relatively low tech.)

btw Yes, I'm implying that Canon are making a huge profit per mkIII sold, but they have spent a lot on R+D, and people are prepared to pay that price, so fair play to them. As the price comes down over the next year or so, it won't be due to improvements in manufacturing process resulting in cheaper unit costs - it will just be slimmer profit margins for Canon.

Also I'm not sure how they could remove enough stuff from a 5d MKIII to produce a cut down version that is so significantly cheaper that it would get reasonable sales though. Pulling numbers from my posterior:

Even in a couple of years time when the mkIII is selling for $2500, there's not many people who would go for a cutdown camera for $2000 when the full 5d mkIII is only a little more. About the only thing I can think of is if they removed video then they could justify a much lower price (even if the manufacturing costs would actually be the same) and be able to capture more of the market.

I'd agree with your first point and that Canon are making a large profit per unit on the 5D3 right now but surely the latter means that its not so much a case of how they could "save" on production cost but rather what kind of margin they would be happy with on a budget model.

Such a model could have a relatively modest difference in production cost to the 5D3 but if the difference in specs is enough to protect 5D3 sales Canon might well be willing to drop there margins significantly.

Getting enough of a difference in specs while still remaining competitive with the D600 seems like the potential problem to me. Nikon can afford to sail very close to the D800 in specs(and beat it in FPS potentially) because there offering a lower res sensor, if Canon do the same with then 5D3 they'll likely loose more sales.

As I said earlier to me the best way forward would seem to be to include a higher resolution sensor in the budget model if one is going to be released in a higher end model first.

Similarly - continuing the production of the 5d mkII may not be cheaper for Canon than producing a new cut down version of the 5d mkIII. In fact if they stopped manufacturing mkIIs and released another camera that used the same sensor as the mkIII but with other features removed - they would probably see large savings compared to having to continue to have two separate production lines for sensors.

Same with processors, I suspect. Rather than continue to produce the old processor and old sensor, it's probably cheaper to put the new ones in a different body. I suspect a "budget" full frame camera would have a composite body, scaled down autofocus, SD Card only, slower frame rate, etc.

I saw something posted here that production line constraints (for the 1D sensor) would make this unrealistic for Canon, so maybe I'm going in the wrong direction... But wouldn't a no-frills (well... low frills) camera with Canon's highest low light / all around IQ be appealing for a lot of photographers?

Having seen some impressive early images coming from the 1DX, I would love to be able to take usable shots at and above 25600 ISO. (But I can live without Mp and fps and top line AF)

I remember reading many sentiments like this before the 5DIII came out, but no one mentioning it now. Is the 1DX sensor so much more expensive than the 5DIII's that this couldn't be the "Lower Price Full Frame Camera?"

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

Jettatore

The original 5D classic makes an amazing, entry level Full Frame camera at a Lower Price point. If you can afford more and or require video, get a used 5DII at near double the price. It doesn't get much simpler. High mega-pixel FF (not something I'm interested in personally) would seem to make more sense from a marketing perspective as there are at least many out there, that are specifically asking for a product like that and where it exists is across the isle on the Nikon side, although not at a low price. If they can strip video from it and a bunch of other features in an effort to keep the price low, it would probably make a lot of folks happy, but if I wanted price alone just to access full frame, I'd re-buy the original 5D in a heartbeat, it's an amazing camera (great battery life, great ISO performance, full-frame, great IQ, and a used copy in good working condition is $850USD or less shipped). If you have the EF lenses and have been waiting for full-frame and don't need video get one immediately, it will likely even hold a large portion of it's current re-sale value if you want to sell it for a 5DII/III/etc. upgrade sooner rather than later.

Canon have basically dug themselves into a hole with the 5DIII specs and price:

If they are planning a more expensive model than the 5DIII with more MPs (say a 5DX), then this model will not be competitive with the D800 on price.

And if they are planning a lower-priced FF camera than the 5DIII with less MPs, then this model will not be competitive with the (rumored) D600 on megapixels.

So, it indeed appears that Canon's most sensible option for a lower-priced FF camera would be to put a higher MPs sensor (say 28-30mp) in a body with the 7D AF system.This will provide enough differentiation from the pro-oriented 5DIII and will be competitive with the rumored D600.

... Except that they won't do it, IMO.

I think Canon will just wait for the D600 announcement and will reduce the 5DIII price. As I've predicted many times, the 5DIII price will drop to $2999 this Christmas and $2499 the next.

So, there you have it: Canon's "entry level" FF camera will be the 5DIII @ $2499 at the end of next year.

After that, it's anyone's guess. If the D600 is successful (very likely), Canon might respond ... eventually. For now, though, the 5DIII will be Canon's only 'affordable' FF camera.